• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Definite proof that most of Digg readers are idiots

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: KarmaPolice
Jeez its fine if you think .9999 repeating is 1....but there is no reason to call people idiots that dont fully understand it or look down on them in anyway...
Click to expand...

Let me put it to you this way.

I don't mind people who don't understand something like, say, how a car works, or carbon dating, or something. I don't even mind having a discussion with them.

It's when they're repeatedly proven wrong, and yet continue to bring forth the same discredited arguments and insist that they're right, when it gets annoying.
 
ok. let me break it down for you in simple terms.


what is 1-.9999....?

any number is too small. its 0.000......1 but thats nota number. its infintey small.

so, 1-.999... is 0

so 1=.999.....

duh. 1=.999..... the is no arguing that. its like arguing 2=2, or 1+1=2, u can do it, but ur still wrong
 
That's fallacious logic-- using it, if I have an imaginary number ( 1 + 0 i), it cannot possibly also be a real number (1). But we know that 1 + 0i is the same exact thing as 1.
Click to expand...

1 + 0i isn't an imaginary number.
 
Originally posted by: fitzov
That's fallacious logic-- using it, if I have an imaginary number ( 1 + 0 i), it cannot possibly also be a real number (1). But we know that 1 + 0i is the same exact thing as 1.
Click to expand...

1 + 0i isn't an imaginary number.
Click to expand...

You're right, it's a complex number.
 
Originally posted by: fitzov
That's fallacious logic-- using it, if I have an imaginary number ( 1 + 0 i), it cannot possibly also be a real number (1). But we know that 1 + 0i is the same exact thing as 1.
Click to expand...

1 + 0i isn't an imaginary number.
Click to expand...


Epp... you're right. I meant complex numbers. But my argument still stands.
 
Originally posted by: MathMan
Originally posted by: fitzov
That's fallacious logic-- using it, if I have an imaginary number ( 1 + 0 i), it cannot possibly also be a real number (1). But we know that 1 + 0i is the same exact thing as 1.
Click to expand...

1 + 0i isn't an imaginary number.
Click to expand...


Epp... you're right. I meant complex numbers. But my argument still stands.
Click to expand...


go read about what hyperreal numbers are and get back to us with your apology Mathman
 
Originally posted by: fitzov
Originally posted by: MathMan
Originally posted by: fitzov
That's fallacious logic-- using it, if I have an imaginary number ( 1 + 0 i), it cannot possibly also be a real number (1). But we know that 1 + 0i is the same exact thing as 1.
Click to expand...

1 + 0i isn't an imaginary number.
Click to expand...


Epp... you're right. I meant complex numbers. But my argument still stands.
Click to expand...


go read about what hyperreal numbers are and get back to us with your apology Mathman
Click to expand...


No need to do that... simply categorically saying that a number cannot be real because you assigned to a new class of numbers which you define to not be real does not make your argument valid.

Go pick up a real analysis book, look up the theorems on convergence of real sequences, and try to disprove my argument above.
 
Originally posted by: fitzov
Originally posted by: MathMan
Originally posted by: fitzov
That's fallacious logic-- using it, if I have an imaginary number ( 1 + 0 i), it cannot possibly also be a real number (1). But we know that 1 + 0i is the same exact thing as 1.
Click to expand...

1 + 0i isn't an imaginary number.
Click to expand...


Epp... you're right. I meant complex numbers. But my argument still stands.
Click to expand...


go read about what hyperreal numbers are and get back to us with your apology Mathman
Click to expand...
Real numbers are a subset of hyperreal numbers. Just as 1 is a real number, it is also a complex number. Just because we can represent 1 as being in the set of real numbers, it does not preclude us from representing it in a larger set containing the set of reals and other exclusive sets. Hence, we can also represent 1 as the complex number 1+0*i. So there is no reason why we cannot also represent 1 by an equivalent hyperreal number.
 
I liked this argument in the link...

1/3 = .33333......
2/3 = .66666......

So

1/3 = .333...
+
2/3 = .666...
-------------------
3/3 = .999...



1 = .999...


That's about the easiest expression I've seen.
 
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
I liked this argument in the link...

1/3 = .33333......
2/3 = .66666......

So

1/3 = .333...
+
2/3 = .666...
-------------------
3/3 = .999...



1 = .999...


That's about the easiest expression I've seen.
Click to expand...



I think Fitzov is now working on trying to prove .3333333 != 1/3

😛
 
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
I liked this argument in the link...

1/3 = .33333......
2/3 = .66666......

So

1/3 = .333...
+
2/3 = .666...
-------------------
3/3 = .999...



1 = .999...


That's about the easiest expression I've seen.
Click to expand...

only problem is 3/3 != .999...
3/3 = 1

😀

 
Originally posted by: LeiZaK
Originally posted by: MathMan
Originally posted by: chambersc
Originally posted by: Unheard
.9repeating != 1
Click to expand...

seriously, rofl, why do people not get this. based off emperical observations i can categorically say .999 isn't 1.
Click to expand...



Of course it's obvious .999 isn't 1.

However .999...... IS 1. And if you don't get that, you better stick to law school....
Click to expand...

I get it, I just don't agree with it.
Click to expand...

I think its more a problem of semantics than mathematics. It can be mathematically shown in many ways (as you've all already seen) that .9999....=1.

But that does not necessarily invalidate the theoretical concept of .99999.... as a limit approaching 1 but never actually getting there.
 
Wow! The sheer number of people arguing against it is phenomenol (on Digg). I grant you it can be hard to understand (my wife has a real hard time with abastract thought. I tried to explain that 2D is just a concept used to describe 3D and that there is no such thing as a true 2D in the world. Whoosh....over the head). Its the same phenomenon. She got pretty adamant about it to. I think that they think that we think they're dumb for not understanding. Too bad, "That doesn't seem right" isn't a valid proof of anything.

P-X
 
Originally posted by: fitzov
go read about what hyperreal numbers are and get back to us with your apology Mathman
Click to expand...
I believe we've already had a go read <something loosly related to topic at hand> callout in this thread, and that was by me. Finished reading that thread already? :laugh:
 
what is it, assuming the universe is spherical, 24 digits of pi is all that is required to calculate the circumference of the universe to the accuracy of a photon...or something like that. So I propose that .999999999999999999999999 = 1. But nm, cause that's stupid, because it's fscking not.
 
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
I liked this argument in the link...

1/3 = .33333......
2/3 = .66666......

So

1/3 = .333...
+
2/3 = .666...
-------------------
3/3 = .999...



1 = .999...


That's about the easiest expression I've seen.
Click to expand...

1/2 = .5

+

1/2 = .5
---------------------
2/2 = 1 != .999 repeating

 
Originally posted by: Unheard
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
I liked this argument in the link...

1/3 = .33333......
2/3 = .66666......

So

1/3 = .333...
+
2/3 = .666...
-------------------
3/3 = .999...



1 = .999...


That's about the easiest expression I've seen.
Click to expand...

1/2 = .5

+

1/2 = .5
---------------------
2/2 = 1 != .999 repeating
Click to expand...

WTF are you getting at?

Allow me to simplify.

.33333333.... = 1/3, yes?

Well, try .333333... + .333333.... + .333333...
That equals .99999...., yes?
OK, well we just proved that 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = .99999...
Well, obviously 3/3 equals 1.
 
Originally posted by: jagec
Originally posted by: Unheard
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
I liked this argument in the link...

1/3 = .33333......
2/3 = .66666......

So

1/3 = .333...
+
2/3 = .666...
-------------------
3/3 = .999...



1 = .999...


That's about the easiest expression I've seen.
Click to expand...

1/2 = .5

+

1/2 = .5
---------------------
2/2 = 1 != .999 repeating
Click to expand...

WTF are you getting at?

Allow me to simplify.

.33333333.... = 1/3, yes?

Well, try .333333... + .333333.... + .333333...
That equals .99999...., yes?
OK, well we just proved that 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = .99999...
Well, obviously 3/3 equals 1.
Click to expand...

My friend just tried to tell me that 1/3 doesnt actually equal .3333 repeating...its just math people putting it into terms in such a way they can work with..

that doesnt make sense to me..does 1/3=.33333 repeating....makes sense to me...
 
Originally posted by: jagec
Originally posted by: Unheard
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
I liked this argument in the link...

1/3 = .33333......
2/3 = .66666......

So

1/3 = .333...
+
2/3 = .666...
-------------------
3/3 = .999...



1 = .999...


That's about the easiest expression I've seen.
Click to expand...

1/2 = .5

+

1/2 = .5
---------------------
2/2 = 1 != .999 repeating
Click to expand...

WTF are you getting at?

Allow me to simplify.

.33333333.... = 1/3, yes?

Well, try .333333... + .333333.... + .333333...
That equals .99999...., yes?
OK, well we just proved that 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = .99999...
Well, obviously 3/3 equals 1.
Click to expand...

Truthfully I'm arguing for the sake of stirring the pot. Math nerds get way to uptight about this issue. It is my true belief that .999.... = 42
 
Originally posted by: KarmaPolice

My friend just tried to tell me that 1/3 doesnt actually equal .3333 repeating...its just math people putting it into terms in such a way they can work with..

that doesnt make sense to me..does 1/3=.33333 repeating....makes sense to me...
Click to expand...

LOL, those stupid "math people", we can't trust them with our maths!:laugh:

Does your friend prefer to perform his own surgery, as well? After all, the so-called "experts" obviously don't know anything about it...
 
Originally posted by: KarmaPolice
My friend just tried to tell me that 1/3 doesnt actually equal .3333 repeating...its just math people putting it into terms in such a way they can work with..

that doesnt make sense to me..does 1/3=.33333 repeating....makes sense to me...
Click to expand...

When it comes down to it, aren't numbers in general just something that "us math people" use to represent things?
 
Wow. I remember in the first ATOT poll I said they weren't equal. Just because "it didn't seem right". But in the chaos that ensued at least I was able to learn something new, come on people open your minds!
 
what are some other things like this that get ya thinking....I used to have long debates with my friends in highschool about things that seem strange but might be true...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top